It’s not fair to destroy the dollar and cheat responsible savers! – Ron Paul to Ben Bernanke

Ron Paul Grills Bernanke On Watergate, Saddam Hussein and the Federal Reserve

Sudeep Reddy
Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas), the chief critic of the Federal Reserve on Capitol Hill, used his five minutes at a House Financial Services Committee hearing this morning to explore the central bank’s role in Saddam Hussein’s reign and Watergate.

That’s right — Watergate and Saddam Hussein. Rep. Paul was airing allegations that the Federal Reserve has been used to funnel money for various nefarious causes. That’s why the Fed needs wider audits by Congress, Mr. Paul said.

His bill to audit the central bank’s monetary policy — a measure the Fed opposes — would include a lag of six months. Today, he sought to win a commitment to audit the Fed after 10 or 15 years. “Why couldn’t we open the books up 10 years back and find out the truth of these matters?” Mr. Paul asked.

Full story here.

Eliot Spitzer: “The Federal Reserve Is A Ponzi Scheme” (Inside The Fed’s Secret Pile Of Trash With Ratigan, Spitzer & Toure)

div>

<div><iframe height=”339″ width=”425″ src=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/32124060#32124060” frameborder=”0″ scrolling=”no”></iframe><p style=”font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 425px;”>Visit msnbc.com for <a style=”text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;” href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com”>Breaking News</a>, <a href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507” style=”text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;”>World News</a>, and <a href=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072” style=”text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;”>News about the Economy</a></p></div>

Best Quote Is Eliot Spitzer Calling The Federal Reserve A Ponzi Scheme

An outstanding discussion, primer and visual lesson on toxic assets, failed banks, the Federal Reserve, HR 1207, auditing the Fed, and you, the f*cked taxpayer.  Don’t miss this clip and then send it to someone else.  Pay it forward until we have millions of f*cked taxpayers who will at least be informed.  Awareness is our only chance.

And a Friday f-you to a few individuals: Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, George Bushes, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Joseph Cassano, and James Cramer.

Now the acronyms: SIV, CDO, CLO, CMO, FDIC, TARP, TALF, TLGF, PPIP and finally, most vehemently CNBC (except Faber & Santelli), for covering all of this for the last decade, and still never telling the truth.

(From James) More green shoots from Dylan Ratigan’s awesome new show.  Dylan puts on his Banker hat and swaps a (literal) bag of trash, on-air, for $13.9 Trillion worth of Monopoly money from a guy wearing a “Fed” hat.  Dylan then explains why we should support Ron Paul’s Audit of the Fed (HR 1207) and explains in plain and simple terms how we have been screwed by the Fed’s bailout of the banks.  This is really good stuff.  I can’t help but admire Ratigan for what he’s doing with the new show.  From our perspective, it just gets better and better.  Here are just two of several choice morsels from this clip:

• “The Federal Reserve just extended $14 Trillion of our money, our children’s money, America’s future…and now they don’t want to talk about what’s in the bag. And they did it because the banks created a garbage bag full of bad debts.” (4:45)

• “I feel as if America has suffered the greatest theft and cover-up — ever, … where banks created a pile of garbage, that they paid themselves billions of dollars in personal compensation, and then stuck the trillions of dollars worth of garbage with the American taxpayer. That, to me, is stealing.” (7:05)

Mobilize Now to Oust Bernanke as Fed Chair

Webster G. Tarpley
Infowars.com
January 23, 2010

 

	Once Bernanke has been defeated,it will be time to secure the ouster of Treasury Secretary Geithner, the former head of the New York Fed and currently the most visible member of the entire Obama cabinet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the aftermath of the Massachusetts Senate vote last Tuesday, we now have a concrete fighting chance to block the reappointment of Wall Street puppet Ben Bernanke as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors by preventing his Senate confirmation next week. This afternoon, Bernanke’s support was eroding hour by hour. The defections from the Bernanke camp feature Democratic senators who are up for reelection this coming November. They have read the tea leaves from Massachusetts, and they know the pitchforks are out, so their response is a mad rush to acquire economic populist and anti-Wall Street cover. The obvious way to do this is to turn against Bernanke and defeat him in the upcoming confirmation vote. Leading the charge late today were Senator Barbara Boxer of California and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both endangered Democrats. GOP Senator Corker of Tennessee is now waffling about whether or not he will support Bernanke. The pressure is building on self-styled Democratic economic populists like Sherrod Brown of Ohio to prove that they are worth something. What will Senator-elect Scott Brown do? If he votes for Bernanke, he will have betrayed his voters in less than a week, and will not survive his own re-election campaign in 3 years. Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, succumbing to overwhelming pressure from the Obama White House, announced late this afternoon that he will fall on his sword for Helicopter Ben, but this self-destructive pledge may not survive a weekend in Nevada, where the economic populist pitchforks are as finely honed as anywhere. It is therefore time for all responsible citizens and all persons of good will to mobilize in the days ahead to secure the defeat of Bernanke. Such an event would symbolize the turn of the tide against Wall Street in the struggle to decide who will pay for the current depression — the people or the bankers and hedge fund hyenas.

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t
• 

We stress that this is a battle which can be won. Two senators, Bunning of Kentucky and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, have placed holds on the Bernanke nomination. This means that a supermajority of 60 votes will be required to bring Helicopter Ben’s nomination to the Senate floor. As of now, no one can know whether these votes will be forthcoming. Republicans have little reason to favor Bernanke over their own careers. The Obama White House, despite its most recent efforts to re-create a populist persona for the chief executive, is foolishly supporting Bernanke — a move which undermines all other economic populist posturing Obama might engage in. Individual Democrats, especially those facing the hour of truth in November, know very well how much Bernanke and his Federal Reserve elitists are hated by Americans. For the moment, this game is therefore out of control and highly vulnerable to the application of mass-based political pressure. If Bernanke can be defeated, the Wall Street-Federal Reserve lockstep will be momentarily broken, and the path to auditing the Fed and, more importantly, nationalizing it as a bureau of the Treasury will be wide open.

Late this afternoon, pro-financier spokesmen on Bloomberg and CNBC were talking about a scenario in which Bernanke would remain no matter what as chairman of the Federal Open Market Committee, the unconstitutional body which sets interest rates in accordance with the wishes of the privately owned Federal Reserve districts, above all the New York one. In this scenario, Donald Kohn, the current Fed Vice Chairman, would take Bernanke’s place as the Chairman of the Board of Governors. Kohn, it will be remembered, is just as odious as Bernanke. About a year ago, Kohn’s impudence, arrogance and elitism were highlighted during a Senate hearing when he indignantly refused to reveal the names of the AIG derivatives counterparties who were receiving some $70 billion of US taxpayer money in return for their worthless and toxic financial derivatives. If Bernanke and Kohn should attempts to maintain their power over the Federal Reserve, meaning in practice short-term interest rates in this country, they will create laboratory conditions for a massive economic populist revolt which could well lead to the seizure and nationalization of the Federal Reserve as a bureau of the US Treasury and a public utility to provide 0% credit for production in the interests of the American people. That would put an end to almost a century of financial insurrection by the Wall Street financiers and their puppets against the Constitution — a blatant illegality which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson.

All opponents of the illegal, unconstitutional, and failed Federal Reserve system must now realize that this is the hour of action. It is time for every serious intelligent person to send two e-mails and place two phone calls to the Washington and local offices of their senators demanding that they stop Bernanke. Obama should also be warned that Bernanke is an insult to the American people. Those who have been complaining about the Fed for decades now have a real chance to do something about it. These chances are very rare, but this is the best one in many, many decades. Even Paul Adolph Volcker, who had been responsible for an obscene 22% prime rate three decades ago, had an easier time getting reconfirmed than Bernanke. Once Bernanke has been defeated, it will be time to secure the ouster of Treasury Secretary Geithner, the former head of the New York Fed and currently the most visible member of the entire Obama cabinet. The basic outlines of a criminal indictment for Geithner on tax fraud and securities fraud can be culled from virtually any daily newspaper. Geithner ought to be accompanied on his trip home by White House economic czar Larry Summers, the woman-hating former president of Harvard who managed to destroy about a third of the Harvard endowment as a result of his fanatical devotion to the riskiest of financial derivatives. This and more will be within our reach if Bernanke can be checkmated over the next week or two.

Research related links

1. Bernanke says deficit is the price of growth
2. Bernanke Foes Seek to Curtail Fed
3. Bernanke Begins ‘Thorough Review’ of Fed Disclosure
4. Bernanke Discards Monetary History With Bear Stearns Bailout
5. Bernanke Tells Obama Banks Need More Money
6. High-stakes duel between Rep. Paul and Bernanke intensifies
7. Bernanke Not Obama to Make “Trillion Dollar Decision”
8. Time Magazine Names Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke As Person Of The Year
9. Reconfirm Bernanke?
10. Bernanke in denial about looming crisis 2005-2007
11. Bernanke Says Recession Over. Should You Care?
12. U.S. Eyes Two-Part Bailout for Banks

High-stakes duel between Rep. Paul and Bernanke intensifies

By Silla Brush

Rep. Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke are locked in a clash of titans.

Paul, the 74-year-old House libertarian from Texas with the high-pitched voice, has fought for decades to kill off the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke, the mild-mannered ex-Princeton professor and chairman of the bank, is waging a high-stakes battle for the Fed’s reputation. And he’s doing everything possible to knock out Paul.

The fight is still in the early rounds. But with the full House expected to vote this week to give government auditors more power to scrutinize the Fed, Paul has the upper hand.

The Senate is a much more difficult round for Paul, though a similar stew of liberal and conservative support is starting to simmer in the upper chamber behind the Republican’s wonky auditing measure.

Bernanke and Paul have never met one-on-one behind closed doors, Paul’s office said. The battle has taken place in public — on blogs, with grassroots activists and during congressional hearings.

Bernanke has testified against the provision, given lengthy media interviews, written op-eds and attempted to lift the cloud of secrecy that hangs over the bank.

The Fed is audited, he argues, but allowing government scrutiny of interest rate decisions will politicize the Fed. Opening the door to congressionally requested audits would compromise the market’s confidence in the bank.

Paul, a longstanding supporter of a new gold standard, made his case formally in his recently published book, End the Fed.

The 2008 presidential candidate’s crusade is no longer a quixotic quest. He is a prime beneficiary of the grassroots anger this year against government bailouts for Wall Street.

First introduced in February, Paul’s bill to audit the Fed has gained 317 co-sponsors, a shocking three-quarters of the House. The bill has not won over many Democrats in leadership, but it has picked up several committee chairmen, including Reps. Bart Gordon (Tenn.), Jim Oberstar (Minn.) and John Spratt (S.C.).

Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), a prominent Paul ally on the bill, has provided a huge boost to the effort with his firebrand strain of liberal politics.
Grayson has publicly slammed the Fed, going so far as calling its top lobbyist a “K Street whore” before apologizing. Paul himself said the full force of “lobbyists for the Fed” is stacked against him.

As the popularity of the Paul-Grayson measure rose this year, Bernanke’s fell.

Praised by many economists for taking the necessary steps to right the economy over the last year, his overall public approval has soured. A Rasmussen poll in November showed that just 21 percent of those surveyed thought Bernanke should be reappointed. Meanwhile, 79 percent of those polled said auditing the Fed is a good idea.

Republicans have jumped behind Paul, who stood out in last year’s GOP presidential primary for his outspokenness against the Iraq war.

“There needs to be Fed independence and accountability for those dollars to at least look back at those decisions,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas).

But the political value is plain as Republicans argue the government is taking too large a role in the economy.

“The Fed becomes for Republicans a very convenient, always controversial, always misunderstood, very specific whipping boy that they can ride to potential victory in 2010 and 2012,” said a Washington-based financial lobbyist.

Bernanke has the normally powerful Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in his corner. But as chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank couldn’t eke out a compromise.

Frank rarely loses battles, but an attempt — with Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) — at a deal on the audit issue simply fell short at the committee level. Liberal activist Robert Borosage, who is campaigning against Bernanke’s nomination for a second term, said the compromise effort was nothing more than “the establishment alternative.”

The committee voted 43-26 in favor of Paul’s amendment as 15 Democrats on the panel bucked Frank.

The vote drew a bright line between the senior Democrats atop the committee and the freshman and sophomore members.

“I think some of the newer members are in the most vulnerable districts,” said Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), a Paul-Grayson co-sponsor who instead joined Frank in voting against the Paul amendment. “They were certainly getting the calls that I was getting, and they were reading the politics differently.”

Frank and Paul are both veterans of the House, and while they are on nearly opposite ends of the political spectrum, they have a mutual respect. The two have worked closely on an Internet gaming measure.

Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill say that Frank, despite his partisan rhetoric, is a pragmatist.

“I never felt [Frank] was against me,” Paul said.

Frank said last week the language wouldn’t be changed when the House heads for the vote. Ten of the 13 House members on the Rules Committee are among Paul’s backers, including Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

“Absent some change in the way the public is reacting, I don’t see any changes,” Frank said. “I think there is this tension within the Republican Party. A lot of their people who traditionally have a lot of influence are troubled by this, but they may be cowed by the anger at the Fed.”

In the Senate, Paul has found support from Sens. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, and Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont who calls himself a proud socialist.

A left-right coalition of interest groups on the outside is joining forces against Bernanke.

Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

Order the DVD at: http://infowars-shop.stores.yahoo.net…
Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency.

President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations’ Security Council, thus becoming the first US president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet.

A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery.

The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the world’s savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their master plan.

This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and what the power elite have in store for humanity. More importantly it communicates how We The People can retake control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the tyrants to justice.
A film by Alex Jones.

Ron Paul and the Judge on the Fed

 

Infowars
December 4, 2009

Senator moves to slow Bernanke’s Fed confirmation

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders said on Wednesday that he was placing a hold on Ben Bernanke’s nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman, a move that could slow the confirmation process.

If the hold is not withdrawn, the move by Sanders, an independent from Vermont, means that Senate leaders will not be able to bring up the nomination for a vote by unanimous consent. Instead, they may need to garner 60 votes in order to consider the nomination.

In a statement, Sanders blasted Bernanke, whose current term expires on January 31, for doing too little to help ordinary Americans, while going too easy on big financial institutions.

“The American people want a new direction on Wall Street and at the Fed. They do not want as chairman someone who has been part of the problem and who has been responsible for many of the enormous difficulties that we are now experiencing,” Sanders said. “It’s time for him to go.”

President Barack Obama nominated the former Princeton University economics professor to another term as central bank chief in August, praising his handling of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s.

Many lawmakers, however, are upset at the large-scale bailouts of financial firms the Fed helped engineer. Many also accuse the Fed of having failed to stem the risky lending practices that helped fuel the financial crisis.

Bernanke is set to testify to the Senate Banking Committee on Thursday. The panel would need to approve his nomination before sending it before the full Senate for a final confirming vote.

With the Senate tied up with health-care reform, it may be difficult to schedule any procedural votes on the nomination before year end.

Legendary Financial Historian Ed Griffin on the Economic Crisis, the Monetary Elite and the Future of the Internet

 

G. Edward Griffin

 

Guest Interview

11/29/2009 – with Scott Smith

The editors of the Daily Bell are pleased to publish an exclusive follow-up interview with legendary hard-money historian G. Edward Griffin who has much to say about the economic crisis, the mood of the monetary elite and the effect of the Internet on freedom.

Introduction: Mr. Griffin is a distinguished film producer, author and political lecturer. He is the founder of Freedom Force International, a libertarian-oriented activist network focused on advancing individual freedom. First released in 1994, Mr. Griffin’s best-selling financial book, The Creature from Jekyll Island, is a no-holds-barred look into the inner workings of the Federal Reserve banking system, or cartel if you will. Mr. Griffin peels back the layers of obstruction to rational analysis and leads the reader on a wonderfully researched, although disturbing, journey from the very beginning, when the Fed was still in the planning stages, up to the present, where it is now struggling to survive. For many years, the editors of the Daily Bell have been avid readers of Mr. Griffin’s tremendous literary contributions on free markets and personal liberty. His insights are especially noteworthy given the validity of his vision and the exciting and troublesome nature of the times in which we live.

Daily Bell: Has the stimulus helped? Why or why not?

Griffin: Has the stimulus helped? I guess the question is has the stimulus helped whom? Or What? The general idea is that the stimulus is supposed to stimulate the American economy and help the American people and in that I don’t believe that there is any reason to think that it has helped at all. I don’t think it was really designed to do that at all. It was designed to be sold that way but I don’t think that anyone in Washington thought that it would actually accomplish the end objective. Now I suppose that some people did think so, I would have to backtrack on that, there are some collectivists that believe the government can solve all problems, that the government can take everything from the citizens and redistribute it back to them in a more efficient manner. There are people like that out there and they thought the stimulus package would help. Surely everybody understands that the money that is being spent is coming out of the pockets of the very people it is supposed to help.

Daily Bell: From the central banking mechanism?

Griffin: Yes, the government doesn’t have this money. The government is spending this money but they don’t have this money, and the paradox there is that they are not collecting it from taxes but they are just creating it out of nothing. They are using the Federal Reserve mechanism to create this money out of nothing, push it into the economy and then that results in inflation. The cost of it is born by everybody but it is usually born mostly by the people at the bottom of the economic scale who will feel the effects of inflation the most.

Daily Bell: Modern governments are supposed to take care of the poor, but often it doesn’t work that way.

Griffin: The very wealthy don’t suffer too much from the effects of inflation and the upper middle class get by OK, but the bottom part of the middle class and those who are on limited incomes have a real tough time with inflation. So I am saying the cost of all these stimulus packages are falling on the very people who are supposedly to be helped and not only that, the benefit is not going to those people at all but to the politically favored class, those who are in government jobs or government contracts with the government. It is going to the banks, going to the insurance companies, the big corporations – all who have strong lobbying influence with Washington. The money is coming from the middle and lower class and going to the politically favored class. So is it helping? It is helping the politically favored class a lot, it is helping the politicians a lot because they can posture and grandstand and say we are doing something, we are taking charge here. So it is helping them. But as for helping the economy or the people at large, it is a miserable failure.

Daily Bell: Are we headed toward price inflation?

Griffin: I think we are going to see some continued deflation in the economy, particularly in the bubble sectors. These markets had a long way to contract and I don’t think they are finished. However, it is inevitable that we are going to see price inflation and lots of it. Probably hyper-inflation because the only thing these people in Washington know is how to print more money which almost inevitably leads to higher prices.

Daily Bell: Isn’t price inflation already in the system?

Griffin: Of course it is, particularly in cost of living sectors – food, education and healthcare. Things people have to deal with every day. We are already are seeing price inflation there.

Daily Bell: Price inflation, which inevitably results from the printing of money. …

Griffin: What is interesting when you have a complete understanding about this, is to realize that while they are creating tremendous amounts of money out of nothing and pouring it into the economy through the politically favored class, as I mentioned earlier, at the same time a tremendous amount of money is dropping out of the system at the bottom because of the collapse of real estate values, the loss of savings, the writing off of bad loans, mortgages or writing off a $20k or $30k credit card bill or whatever the debt is. And eventually they go into bankruptcy court and they are cleared of that debt, that money literally goes out of existence.

Daily Bell: So inflation – which is actually the quantity of money – is evening out for the moment?

Griffin: With the fiat money system, money comes in and out of existence and people sometimes forget that fact. So in these economic downturn times, a lot of money is disappearing and at the same time is appearing at the top. The thing to keep your eye on is where the money is going out of the system. It’s coming out of the middle class. These are the people that have lost their savings, have lost the equity in their homes. They have lost all the money that they thought they had in the way of assets, a lot of it anyway. So we see there is money going out and at the same time there is money coming in. It is a transfer of wealth. The wealthy, because of the political connections, are making more and more money and the middle class is literally being squeezed. These guys at the top hope to squeeze these middle guys out of existence.

Daily Bell: Is the power elite running scared?

Griffin: I wouldn’t say they are running scared. I think they are cautious. I think things are unfolding pretty much the way they had anticipated all along. I think these people are smart enough to realize that as we come closer and closer to their New World Order, as they like to call it, the system is becoming more and more a command economy rather than a free market.

Daily Bell: But aren’t people waking up?

Griffin: There is a lot of upheaval going on. I think there is anticipation that there is a lot of waking up going on. But I think they have been preparing for that. I think they are cautious, but I think they fully expect to contain that or possibly turn it to their advantage. For example, if they could encourage rebellion, revolts and riots, that would provide the excuse for martial law. I think the motivation behind their equipping police forces and national guard units with crowd control weapons and the reason they have been building these massive FEMA concentration camps all around the country, is their anticipation of the need for a final crackdown.

Daily Bell: Has the Internet contributed to elite setbacks?

Griffin: I think the Internet has been the most powerful force to set back the plans of the power elite. They hate the Internet, they hate the free exchange of information. You can see the impact all around the world. The totalitarian systems are moving heaven and earth in order to regulate and restrict the free use of the Internet. They want to control it. They can control it. And they are working very hard as we speak to maneuver the legislation so that they will control it.

Daily Bell: How are they going about it?

Griffin: They are trying to sell it to the average person as a good move for the public. They are trying to convince people that if the government doesn’t control the Internet then we will have pornography, people will have their privacy stolen, children will be abused. A lot of people don’t really understand the real issues. They say “oh yeah, naturally we need more and more regulation on the Internet.”

Daily Bell: This is being done independently by governments?

Griffin: Actually, there is a movement afoot for the United Nations to control the Internet. The idea is that international control would be fairer than what we’ve got now, which is a good deal of American control. Of course, most countries don’t make any pretense of respecting individual rights or free-speech. They are totalitarian in nature. The whole world is filled with dictatorships of one kind or another, and these people have no respect for human rights or freedom of speech. You can be sure that if the United Nations winds up in control that the free exchange of information that the whole thing will come to a shuttering stop!

Daily Bell: Not a pleasant thought. But meanwhile, the power elite has other things to occupy itself with. Is it fair to say that the fiat money system is broken beyond repair?

Griffin: No, the fiat money system is all that the world has right now. Of course, it is not working well at all and thus there has been talk of a new monetary system – one that might possibly be backed a little bit by gold or silver. But that’s what they always say to sell it in the early stages. If you look at the people who are making these statements, the Western world leaders, they are enemies of gold and silver. They love fiat money. They want to control it because it’s a means of strengthening their hand over the people. Fiat money is not dead by any means.

Daily Bell: Is there more unrest in the West than the mainstream media suggests?

Griffin: Good question, I don’t know that I am qualified to answer that. My contacts indicate that there is a lot of unrest when you get out beyond informed groups to the people who make up the bulk of the population. But it’s unrest that is not knowledgeable; it’s not based on information.

Daily Bell: What is the trigger, then?

Griffin: It’s based on emotion and envy and anger and I am afraid that that kind of unrest can be used to bring about the very opposite of what we need in this world. If you can manipulate the mobs into being angry, say for example, at capitalism, then you can end up with something even worse.

Daily Bell: Yes, that’s why change has to be non-violent.

Griffin: And it has to be knowledgeable. It’s not knowledgeable to say the banks are failing and therefore capitalism has failed, so let’s try socialism. What’s left out of that argument is that the banks are not functioning within a free-market system. The banks in the world today are a prime example of collectivism. They are in bed with the government. They couldn’t exist without government favoritism and government monopoly. The banks and the government are practically one in the same. That’s not capitalism, that’s not free enterprise competition. But the masses have been told that that is capitalism. So when the collectivist system goes belly up, as it periodically does, then those who are misled can get angry at capitalism, which is the wrong target. I worry about that kind of rising resentment and anger in the world because it is not based on facts.

Daily Bell: Yet understanding of free-markets has taken off in the last decade, thanks to the Internet in large part.

Griffin: Funny, I am thinking that there are two parts in my brain fighting against each other at the moment. On the one hand I want to say something very positive and encouraging because there certainly are strong signs of a growing movement for the free market. But when you look at who is still in charge of the world’s governments and institutions, it’s still a very small component of the larger scene.

Daily Bell: But it is growing? …

Griffin: Yes, it is definitely growing and I believe it has a solid base to it. In fact, I get a great deal of encouragement from that. We just have to keep the fire under it and I think as more and more people become upset with the collapse going on around them, they will honestly start looking for a new way. And thanks to the Internet, many are starting to realize that we haven’t had free-enterprise capitalism, we haven’t had free markets for many years. I’m encouraged by that, but we still have a long way to go.

Daily Bell: We compared the Internet to the Gutenberg press and said the results would be similar. Do you think so?

Griffin: I think that is a good analogy. The Gutenberg press made information available to the masses and the Internet has done the same. Good analogy, yes.

Daily Bell: We’ve spoken about some general threats to the freedom of the Internet. Will the current American administration be able to crack down on the Internet and censor its messages about free-markets and freedom in general?

Griffin: The current administration can do anything it wants to do. That is the answer to the question. They have the political power, the military power and the economic power. They own the economy and they control the military. And the media goes along with everything they want to do. I think they want a crack down, and will try, but they are going to need some kind of an excuse. They are going to need some kind of a major event to justify it.

Daily Bell: Will Ron Paul and his free-market message have an increasing impact on American politics?

Griffin: I believe he will, but I don’t know if it will be because of his personal involvement or this thing that we might call the Ron Paul phenomenon. Ron Paul generated this phenomenon because of his astoundingly excellent position on so many policies and because he ran as a candidate of a major political party which gave him visibility, which he would never have had, particularly with young people. Once that is started, it can’t be stopped really. Once the bell is rung it can’t be un-rung. So I think, even if Ron Paul is not personally involved in any more political movements, that the Ron Paul phenomenon is going to continue to grow.

Daily Bell: We think the conservative movement is desperate to co-opt the libertarian message and has launched a number of artificial candidates to do so including notably Sarah Palin. Agree?

Griffin: I agree that that is a strategy they have considered and would execute if they could. When it comes to particular candidates, I don’t know enough about them. Sarah Palin is very hard to pin down. I don’t know what her political philosophy is. And that worries me, because if someone is offering themselves for leadership, especially in these troubled times, they have to stand up and say what it is they believe in. I am talking about real principles and not just in terms of whether we should or shouldn’t drill oil. That’s an issue, and an interesting issue, but what are the principles, what is the ideology, what is the yardstick that will be used, the guidelines that will be used to make all the decisions that come down the line.

Daily Bell: She comes off as free-market oriented in some ways but not in others. Most notably her ongoing support for the military industrial complex is problematic.

Griffin: I don’t know what her philosophy is. But I have a feeling that what you said is absolutely correct, that they are going to package her as a quote “conservative” whatever that means. Certainly, they are going to package her as a constructive alternative to Obama. Yet when it comes to the real issues like the loss of American sovereignty, the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, important issues like that, we don’t know where she stands.

Daily Bell: We think the American intel establishment is launching more and more conspiratorial and pro-war Internet sites – ones that nonetheless feature free-market rhetoric – in order to confuse the public. Agree?

Griffin: I am not aware of them but it sounds like something they should do. If I was running their strategy, that is exactly what I would do. I don’t know what sites you would be referring to but I would expect that to be the case.

Daily Bell: Will the American establishment media ever get to the bottom of 9/11?

Griffin: The American establishment media will never get to the bottom of 9/11 because they are controlled by the same financial and political forces that seem in some sense responsible for 9/11. I am talking about that cluster of personalities on the Council of Foreign Relations and the people that circle around them. They are the ones that are really calling the shots, not only in the government, but also in the media, educational systems, foundations, etc. The media is as much a part of that group as the government. So I don’t expect to see the media break step with the official position of the government.

Daily Bell: Why did John Farmer, the 9/11 Commission lead litigator, recently come out with a book that basically accused the entire American military, political and industrial structure of lying about what happened on that terrible day?

Griffin: I don’t know, I have not read the book but I am guessing that it might be a kind of decoy to lead people away from the real issue. I suspect that it is part of a decoy. Make a half confession instead of a fuller one.

Daily Bell: Did you ever believe this sort of free-market movement would exist – as it evidently does – within your lifetime?

Griffin: I never questioned whether there would be a free market movement – I was determined to be part of it. That is much of the focus of my work. Yes I did expect to see it.

Daily Bell: Can you list some of your own notable accomplishments – outside of writing one of the best books ever on the Federal Reserve – in aiding this trend?

Griffin: As far as my own work is concerned, others would be better to evaluate how effective that was. I just keep chugging away as best I can.

Daily Bell: What do you believe will happen within the next ten years? Are you optimistic for free markets and freedom in the West and in particular in America?

Griffin: I divide my view into the short view of history and the long view. I have to be honest and say in the short run that I am very pessimistic. I believe that the forces that brought us to this situation are firmly in control of the systems of the world right now. I don’t think we are going to see a turn around in the short term.

Daily Bell: You are speaking of governmental forces?

Griffin: No, I’m not just talking about the political structures, but about the media centers and the educational systems and the labor unions, the church organizations. All the great power centers where people have their leaders and derive their opinions. Those are now all firmly in the hands of collectivists who have this single goal of establishing a new world order based on the model of collectivism.

Daily Bell: You see it as very pervasive.

Griffin: They are in charge. Anyone who thinks we are going to turn that around quickly, well, I don’t think he or she is being realistic. But that does not mean that the long view cannot be favorable. I’m much more optimistic in the longer term. There’s no way to stop this thing in my view. They can stop some of us, but they can’t stop all of us. The ideas cannot be stopped. Once people understand the truth, they are not ever going to easily forget it.

Daily Bell: You’ve done a great deal to help with that effort.

Griffin: All of us together are building a movement where an understanding of free-enterprise and free-markets is reaching the point of critical mass. People are passing the word. Books are being written. DVD’s are being distributed. Outside of the mainstream media, the Internet is having a powerful impact. The overall flow of information is pretty strong right now. It is going to take about two generations, in my opinion, but in the long run I see total victory for free markets and for personal freedom. I feel really good about that.

Daily Bell: From our point of view, the Middle Eastern wars are intended to spread Western-style collectivist democracy to the Islamic world. Has the West stumbled in its war against the Muslim religion (failure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc.)?

Griffin: Have they stumbled? In my view, the conflict between the Western world and Islam is largely manufactured. There is no question that there are extreme groups within Islam, but my own research leads me to the conclusion that those are the very groups that have been fronted, aided and abetted by forces within America because they wanted to create an enemy – a dreaded foe to justify all the other schemes.

Daily Bell: The BBC, in a program last year came to a similar conclusion.

Griffin: Without an enemy, they cannot fight a war. Without a war, they cannot justify being in the Middle East. If they are not in the Middle East, they can’t control the oil and on and on you go.

Daily Bell: So … it’s at least partially manufactured?

Griffin: The war against Islam is manufactured and is actually a war that need not be. Did they fumble the war? No they created it! They created it and it is just a meme. They don’t want to win the war! They want to fight the war for ten years, twenty years, thirty years. They are not fumbling it. It is exactly what they want. It is not a question of winning or losing, it’s a question of just having it, prolonging it and using it as a means of scaring the daylights out of the American people and conditioning them to accept the loss of their freedom at home.

Daily Bell: Homeland Security is a dangerous institution in our opinion and one of the prime outcomes of 9/11. Do you see it being rolled back?

Griffin: I do not see it being rolled back under the present regime. It is not there because the American people wanted it, it is there because rulers wanted it and we still have the same rulers. I don’t see any reason why they would roll it back. They might try to tidy it up a little bit, so far as public relations are concerned. But I would be very surprised if they cut its budget, cut its staff, cut its powers or anything like that. I think it is going to continue to expand, all aspects of it.

Daily Bell: We had a polite but public argument with the savvy Ellen Brown. Can you give us a further response to Ellen Brown’s (Brownian) perspective on nationalizing banks since they, rather than the Federal Reserve, are responsible in her view for banking abuses?

Griffin: Well I am not aware of that debate, but I am certainly able to address the issue of nationalizing banks. There is no reason in my mind for the banking system, or for that matter, the automobile industry, the motion picture industry, housing or any other part of American life to be run by the government. I don’t see any reason for the hospitals or medical clinics to be run by the government either.

Daily Bell: Good point.

Griffin: The idea that whenever there is a problem the solution is for the government to go in and take control is one of the most absurd and childish concepts I have ever heard of. The idea that the government can do anything better than the free market is just based on complete absence of understanding how the free market works. The only thing I think the government can do better than anybody else is to fight a war. The only thing a government can do better is to kill and destroy, and that is what it is good at. If war is used to kill and destroy in defense of a nation, in defense but not as an aggressive act, and it is used to defend the lives, liberty and property of its citizens then war performs a proper function, in my view.

Daily Bell: So you see a need for some kind of limited government, practically speaking.

Griffin: It is tragic that we have to defend ourselves. But history shows if you cannot defend yourself then you become a slave to someone who moves in and takes over. So we need to have the killing machine, but that’s about all.

Daily Bell: But not the banking system?

Griffin: The idea that government should be running the banks is absurd. The American government has been in the banking business since 1913 when the Fed was founded. The solution is not to get more into the banking business but to get the government out of it completely. So I would say no, let’s get the government out of the banks completely and then make the banks follow the rules and regulations that any other business must follow. Give them no favoritism, no subsidy, no bailouts. Make them honor their contracts and if they fail then they fail. Let new banks come into existence.

Daily Bell: How long has gold and silver been used as money? We think silver anyway is a substance that has been used in commerce for up to 10,000 years of human history, not 2,000 as certain monetary authorities suggest.

Griffin: I would have to get my notes out on exact dates but it doesn’t really make any difference if it’s been 2,000 years or 10,000 years. The real issue is not how long but how well it has performed in that function. When you look at the historical record, there is nothing that has done as well as gold or silver as a medium of exchange because it has all of the essential qualities required of money. It is not perishable, it’s divisible, it has great value and it can be precisely measured. People have used just about everything for a medium of exchange but nothing has worked as well as gold and silver for thousands of years. The record is clear on it. That is what history has chosen over and over again. Why do we have to go looking around for something else? I don’t understand that.

Daily Bell: Do you have any other comments to make regarding where we are at this point in the 2000s rather unique history?

Griffin: The only comment I would like to make is that it is an exciting time in which to live. I am glad I am living at this time. I am glad because, for me or anybody else who is a free-market thinking person and one who cares about the future, it gives us an opportunity to make a difference in the world. I think it is a wonderful time to be alive.

Daily Bell: Thank you, Ed. You continue to make a huge difference. It is always a pleasure and an honor to speak to a free-market legend in his own lifetime!
After Thoughts with Scott Smith

What can we say about this remarkable man and the remarkable and honest answers he has provided us? Ed Griffin has fought for freedom throughout his life and his famous book on the Federal Reserve has in one way or another inspired millions to question their assumptions about money and the reality of their lives in modern society.

Ed Griffin is an achiever for freedom and he has continuously made an effort to advance its cause. We don’t have any explanation for what makes Ed Griffin go. He obviously does what he does because he has to do it. We’re just glad he’s around.

If we had any quibble with this interview (how can we, really?) it would be in the area of pessimism – even short-term pessimism. We know Ed was just explaining his viewpoint as honestly as possible, but we think, generally, that pessimism probably expends negative energy that would be better spent doing positive things.

And Ed, despite his views about the elite and their controlling ways, has quite obviously never let pessimism slow him down. He went out and wrote a tremendous book (one of a number he has written) that literally changed people’s lives and perceptions of their culture.

Additionally, Ed is very active in the peaceful fight for freedom in America. He may be pessimistic, short term, but he is the most active pessimist we know. Every day he gets up and does his part, his share, to fight collectivism and to try to gain back some ground for the American Constitution.

For us, Ed is a great inspiration – as a leader, as a fighter in a peaceful revolution of ideas and as a person who has created a life based on an inspiring and important belief structure that he obviously built up on his own. Ed, by the way, lived much of his life in a pre-Internet era. Much of his adult work was conducted pre-Internet, which makes it all the more noteworthy.

For us, of course, as we have often reported, the Internet is something of a game-changer. We look at what the Internet has allowed people to accomplish in terms of supporting freedom, and we begin to believe that the changes that have been made by the Internet are “already in the pipeline.”

Yes people’s minds have already been changed. Now, Ed Griffin believes it may take another two generations to show overwhelming results. But maybe not. There is, as Ed himself agrees, a foundational freedom movement in America, and we see one growing in Britain as well. There are setbacks in all things, and cyclical turnings as well. But people like Ed Griffin and Ron Paul inform us through their actions and intent that there are always two sides at work – and at least two stories being told simultaneously. And maybe, ironically, Ed’s own efforts may contribute to speeding things up. Freedom, real freedom, may not take two generations to achieve.

We want to end by observing that Ed Griffin-a man who certainly ought to know – sees many positives in the world today and in the Internet as well. What we’ll take away from this interview is the energy it exudes, and the excitement that Ed obviously has about the future of freedom, even as he acknowledges, realistically, the challenges ahead.

Thanks again, Mr. Griffin, for all you’ve done and have yet to do.

Interviews and after-thoughts may include the contributions of several Daily Bell editors and writers.

Congress is losing its patience with the Fed

Lawmakers on both sides question power, handling of Wall Street bailouts

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Suddenly the Federal Reserve is everybody’s punching bag.

Strip the Fed of its bank regulation powers, some in Congress are demanding. Get probing audits of its behind-the-scenes operations, others say.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve Board is always fair game for criticism and second-guessing, usually over interest rate actions. But this year the criticism is much broader as Congress responds to widespread public anger that the Fed bailed out Wall Street but not ordinary Americans, and with unemployment in double digits.

Former Fed Chairman William McChesney Martin Jr. famously said that the central bank’s job was to yank away the punchbowl just when everybody is starting to party. And while Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has signaled the Fed will keep interest rates low for now, a round of higher rates inevitably will come.

The Fed finds itself both the punchbowl keeper and the punching bag. Imagine the outcry when it does begin to crank up rates — perhaps just ahead of next year’s midterm elections.

Fireworks seem likely at Senate confirmation hearings early next month on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Bernanke to a second four-year term as chairman.

Many economists and Fed watchers say congressional efforts to rein in the Fed’s powers could interfere with the central bank’s ability to help guide the fragile economy to recovery.

The Fed’s very independence and its unique ability among U.S. institutions to create money out of thin air enabled it to act quickly to stabilize the nation’s financial system after it froze up last September after the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers investment house, Fed backers say.

“It might have been the Fed’s finest moment when it had to jump into the market,” said David M. Jones, a former Fed economist and president of DMJ Advisors, a Denver-based consulting firm. “We still have to wait to see how effective the Fed is in its exit strategy and whether it can keep inflation in check. But this badgering by Congress, even if there is populist sentiment, is inappropriate.”

The Fed’s aggressive intervention also set the stage for the current criticism. Many lawmakers question whether the Fed’s money machine has mainly benefited financial markets and not the broader economy. Lawmakers are also peeved that the central bank acted without congressional involvement when it brokered the 2008 sale of failed investment bank Bear Stearns and engineered the rescue of insurer American International Group.

Bernanke, first appointed by President George W. Bush, has worked closely with both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in confronting the worst financial crisis in decades. Geithner also has gotten his share of congressional wrath, mainly for his administering of the $700 billion bank bailout fund.

“In the past, the Federal Reserve was held in very high esteem,” said Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, a libertarian-leaning Republican who twice ran for president and remains a darling of skeptics of Washington. Now, it’s “the source of our problem,” suggests Paul, author of the best-seller “End the Fed.”

Usually an outlier, Paul suddenly has found an army of at least 307 House colleagues and 30 senators marching behind his legislation to subject the Fed to intense scrutiny by Congress’ Government Accountability Office. The House Financial Services Committee endorsed Paul’s approach 43-26 last week over objections from its chairman, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

The bill would authorize Congress to audit not only the Fed’s lending programs but its basic decisions to set monetary policy by raising or lowering interest rates. Paul has been introducing a version every year since the early 1980s, but this is the first time it has garnered any serious attention.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who will preside over Bernanke’s confirmation hearings, has proposed legislation that would strip the Fed of its bank-regulation authority and give the Senate a role in selecting the 12 regional Federal Reserve bank presidents.

Dodd says his measure would return the Fed to its core mission of setting monetary policy, claiming it proved itself “an abysmal failure” by not cracking down on risky lending practices that led to the financial meltdown.

Dodd is in an extremely tight battle for re-election, even though he has served in Congress for 35 years.

“I don’t think it ever hurts to have a member of Congress stand up and denounce the Fed. There is a lot of anger out there, and this is basically a therapeutic gesture,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.

Still, Baker said, it probably isn’t wise to tamper with the formula that makes the Fed “very much an anomaly in American government. It’s independent, it has to be. You don’t want the Fed to be under the control of the president. And it kind of sits out there — not in the executive branch, not in the legislative branch, not in the judicial branch. Sort of its own little element in the separation-of-powers constellation.”

While the Fed is subject to some congressional oversight, its decisions don’t have to be ratified by the president or Congress. Fed officials are not paid with money appropriated by Congress.

Should Bernanke be worried?

“Not only should be worried, he’s clearly ratcheted up his game in terms of his communications with Congress,” said Norman Ornstein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Ornstein said the Fed bashing this time is different from before, with “a broader base of support. And it’s coming from people who in the past would not have hit the Fed. There’s a lot of populist anger out there — on the left, in the center and on the right. And politicians are responsive to that.”